All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Obama loses again.
10/17/2012 1:10 AM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/16/2012 11:04:00 PM (view original):
He was better than the 1st one, but he still got nailed.

Tomorriw will show that Obama really slipped on a few issues.

And he clearly lied about Benghazi.

Specifically addressing the "fact checkers" on the Benghazi issue:

On CNN’s wrap-up of the debate, following controversy over whether moderator Candy Crowley allowed President Barack Obama to get away with an unfair point, Crowley said that Republican nominee Mitt Romney was “right in the main” in charging that Obama did not correctly designate the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

“Well,  you know, again, I’d heard the president’s speech at the time,” Crowley said. “I sort of reread a lot of stuff about Libya because I knew we’d probably get a Libya question so I kind of wanted to be up on it. So I knew that the president had said, you know, ‘These act of terror won’t stand,’ or whatever the whole quote was.”

“And I think actually, you know, because right after that I did turn around and say,‘But you are totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape and there was this riot outside the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn’t,’” she continued. “So, he was right in the main — I just think he picked the wrong word. And they’re going to parse and we all know about what the definition of ‘is’ is.”

10/17/2012 1:51 AM
I don't see how anyone could think Romney 'won' that debate. In terms of issues/answers, all he ever really says is, "The economy's ******, I know how to create jobs, don't worry about the specifics of my tax/budget plan, I know how to balance budgets, I've done it before, trust me." That's his answer to seemingly every question. In terms of poise (which a lot of people use to determine these things), he seemed much more at odds with the moderator, and seemed increasingly frustrated when it was time for a new question when he still wanted to say more. He was fine when he had the floor, but seemed like a dick during many transitions to new questions/Obama's turn to speak.

It's not like he was terrible, but he seemed like a one trick pony (bad economy, I can fix it, trust me). Not many people are happy with the current economy, but it seems like his whole strategy is to say "the status quo sucks, trust me, I can fix it," which is retarded. Economies are not simple functions of simple variables that can be fixed immediately; if they were, a bad economy would never be an issue, since we'd know how to change it. He's asking the American people to blindly trust him, and never says much beyond that, which is a poor strategy, imo.

I'd bet my entire bank account he's not too thrilled about tonight's debate.
10/17/2012 1:56 AM
And we need to start addressing bias.

This is the 3rd debate that the Democrats got more time than the Republicans.

And Crowley was clearly biased. She stopped Romney anytime he was responding to Obama, but almost never stopped Obama's off topic rants!
10/17/2012 2:12 AM
Posted by inkdskn on 10/17/2012 1:51:00 AM (view original):
I don't see how anyone could think Romney 'won' that debate. In terms of issues/answers, all he ever really says is, "The economy's ******, I know how to create jobs, don't worry about the specifics of my tax/budget plan, I know how to balance budgets, I've done it before, trust me." That's his answer to seemingly every question. In terms of poise (which a lot of people use to determine these things), he seemed much more at odds with the moderator, and seemed increasingly frustrated when it was time for a new question when he still wanted to say more. He was fine when he had the floor, but seemed like a dick during many transitions to new questions/Obama's turn to speak.

It's not like he was terrible, but he seemed like a one trick pony (bad economy, I can fix it, trust me). Not many people are happy with the current economy, but it seems like his whole strategy is to say "the status quo sucks, trust me, I can fix it," which is retarded. Economies are not simple functions of simple variables that can be fixed immediately; if they were, a bad economy would never be an issue, since we'd know how to change it. He's asking the American people to blindly trust him, and never says much beyond that, which is a poor strategy, imo.

I'd bet my entire bank account he's not too thrilled about tonight's debate.
I addressed part of this a couple weeks ago.

His tax code fixes haven't been very specific because if you get too specific in a time when there are numerous elections nation wide, you FORCE candidates on either side to make a choice NOW, and run on those issues.

Then they can't negotiate openly at the bargaining table and find middle ground, they are already locked into their campaign promises which will ultimately be on one side or the other of any specifics that would be offered today.

There are plenty of areas we can cut deductions. MOST of them are targeted at the guys making 200K or more per year. But you go into negotiations with no preconceived barriers. He has demonstrated his ability to get things done when he was a Republican governor in a state where 80 something percent of the legislators were Dems. He managed to work with all of them and got a lot of good things done for the State he was running. How is that not important to the discussion?

He keeps hammering about his experience because that's what will help the economy. He pointed out tonight, that when Reagan inherited a higher unemployment rate (over 10%) he grew the jobs much faster than Obama has during these 4 years. He has balanced the MASS budget each of his 4 years, and turned around the SLC Olympics pretty quickly.

Again I think when you are reviewing applicants for a very important job, experience and past successes are important things to consider. At least they are to me.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
10/17/2012 5:07 AM
Posted by The Taint on 10/17/2012 2:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mchalesarmy on 10/17/2012 12:54:00 AM (view original):
Why did Obama claim that gas was only $1.86 per gallon because the economy was on the brink of collapse?

Can someone please explain that one to me?

No demand.....plenty of supply.
The fact that you have to even explain that shows how loose some people's grasp of basic economics is. Add to that, that the suppliers of oil do not profit if they make it so expensive that it strangles economies. Even monopolies like OPEC have to be somewhat responsive to market forces.
10/17/2012 5:36 AM
10/17/2012 8:39 AM (edited)
Posted by seamar_116 on 10/17/2012 5:07:00 AM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 10/17/2012 2:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mchalesarmy on 10/17/2012 12:54:00 AM (view original):
Why did Obama claim that gas was only $1.86 per gallon because the economy was on the brink of collapse?

Can someone please explain that one to me?

No demand.....plenty of supply.
The fact that you have to even explain that shows how loose some people's grasp of basic economics is. Add to that, that the suppliers of oil do not profit if they make it so expensive that it strangles economies. Even monopolies like OPEC have to be somewhat responsive to market forces.
He said "Because the economy was on the verge of collapse; because we were about to go through the worst recession since the great depression"

So while "on the verge of collapse" our demand was low, but after the collapse, suddenly our demand sky-rocketed?

Really? That the answer?.



10/17/2012 8:35 AM
Posted by mchalesarmy on 10/17/2012 8:32:00 AM (view original):
Posted by seamar_116 on 10/17/2012 5:07:00 AM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 10/17/2012 2:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mchalesarmy on 10/17/2012 12:54:00 AM (view original):
Why did Obama claim that gas was only $1.86 per gallon because the economy was on the brink of collapse?

Can someone please explain that one to me?

No demand.....plenty of supply.
The fact that you have to even explain that shows how loose some people's grasp of basic economics is. Add to that, that the suppliers of oil do not profit if they make it so expensive that it strangles economies. Even monopolies like OPEC have to be somewhat responsive to market forces.
He said "Because the economy was on the verge of collapse; because we were about to go through the worst recession since the great depression"

So while "on the verge of collapse" our demand was low, but after the collapse, suddenly our demand sky-rocketed?

Really? That's the answer?

I'm amazed that people still don't understand this.

Oil is a global commodity whose price is dictated by futures trading.  US economy about to collapse?  Price plummets in anticipation.  As the economy steps back from the brink and begins to stabilize, the price rises.

However, despite increasing supply, the price continues to rise now.  Why?  Because of anticipated growth of demand from countries like China (as well as potential interruption of production).

Anyone who insinuates that a president can have a major impact on gas prices is delusional.   Even as the US increases production and attempts to reduce demand through alternatives, global demand outpaces those attempts.
10/17/2012 8:37 AM

Practically unwatchable.   Neither guy came off as "Presidential".    I guess Town Hall debates are very similar to two city council candidates going at it.   One works for his daddy's construction business and the other is in his 4th year of community college.     Candy Crowley may as well have been a replacement ref.  She lost control early and never got it back. 

If I had to pick a winner, I'd pick someone who had something else to do.     Obama comes in 2nd with Romney in 3rd.    Romney missed on a lot of points and Obama couldn't defend the last 4 years.    Romney looked especially bad on Libya.

10/17/2012 8:55 AM
Posted by jvford on 10/17/2012 8:35:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mchalesarmy on 10/17/2012 8:32:00 AM (view original):
Posted by seamar_116 on 10/17/2012 5:07:00 AM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 10/17/2012 2:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mchalesarmy on 10/17/2012 12:54:00 AM (view original):
Why did Obama claim that gas was only $1.86 per gallon because the economy was on the brink of collapse?

Can someone please explain that one to me?

No demand.....plenty of supply.
The fact that you have to even explain that shows how loose some people's grasp of basic economics is. Add to that, that the suppliers of oil do not profit if they make it so expensive that it strangles economies. Even monopolies like OPEC have to be somewhat responsive to market forces.
He said "Because the economy was on the verge of collapse; because we were about to go through the worst recession since the great depression"

So while "on the verge of collapse" our demand was low, but after the collapse, suddenly our demand sky-rocketed?

Really? That's the answer?

I'm amazed that people still don't understand this.

Oil is a global commodity whose price is dictated by futures trading.  US economy about to collapse?  Price plummets in anticipation.  As the economy steps back from the brink and begins to stabilize, the price rises.

However, despite increasing supply, the price continues to rise now.  Why?  Because of anticipated growth of demand from countries like China (as well as potential interruption of production).

Anyone who insinuates that a president can have a major impact on gas prices is delusional.   Even as the US increases production and attempts to reduce demand through alternatives, global demand outpaces those attempts.
A much better answer than the suppliers not making it so expensive that it strangles economies.

Both answers can't be right can they?

So even if we actually tap into the very large amounts of domestic oil we have and get to the point where we can supply ourselves with all the oil we need, at that point we are still subject to OPEC's pricing, or due to the rising demand world wide it will have a minimal effect?
10/17/2012 9:02 AM
Posted by mchalesarmy on 10/17/2012 8:55:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jvford on 10/17/2012 8:35:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mchalesarmy on 10/17/2012 8:32:00 AM (view original):
Posted by seamar_116 on 10/17/2012 5:07:00 AM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 10/17/2012 2:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mchalesarmy on 10/17/2012 12:54:00 AM (view original):
Why did Obama claim that gas was only $1.86 per gallon because the economy was on the brink of collapse?

Can someone please explain that one to me?

No demand.....plenty of supply.
The fact that you have to even explain that shows how loose some people's grasp of basic economics is. Add to that, that the suppliers of oil do not profit if they make it so expensive that it strangles economies. Even monopolies like OPEC have to be somewhat responsive to market forces.
He said "Because the economy was on the verge of collapse; because we were about to go through the worst recession since the great depression"

So while "on the verge of collapse" our demand was low, but after the collapse, suddenly our demand sky-rocketed?

Really? That's the answer?

I'm amazed that people still don't understand this.

Oil is a global commodity whose price is dictated by futures trading.  US economy about to collapse?  Price plummets in anticipation.  As the economy steps back from the brink and begins to stabilize, the price rises.

However, despite increasing supply, the price continues to rise now.  Why?  Because of anticipated growth of demand from countries like China (as well as potential interruption of production).

Anyone who insinuates that a president can have a major impact on gas prices is delusional.   Even as the US increases production and attempts to reduce demand through alternatives, global demand outpaces those attempts.
A much better answer than the suppliers not making it so expensive that it strangles economies.

Both answers can't be right can they?

So even if we actually tap into the very large amounts of domestic oil we have and get to the point where we can supply ourselves with all the oil we need, at that point we are still subject to OPEC's pricing, or due to the rising demand world wide it will have a minimal effect?
OPEC doesn't set pricing.  They try to manipulate it by controlling supply.

The US is getting very close to producing as much oil as it uses.  But you're right, it won't matter very much because demand in other parts of the world is skyrocketing so prices continue to rise.

Ideally, we would go all in on oil production, alternative energy, and fuel efficiency at the same time.  That would eventually make a dent.  Unfortunately, too many competing interests involved to make it actually happen.
10/17/2012 9:18 AM
According to oilprice.com:

"The shortfall in oil production relative to what would  have been expected based on the 1983-2005 growth pattern amounted to 4.7 million barrels in 2011. This is far more than any country claims as spare capacity. This is no doubt one of the reasons why oil prices are as high they are now. These high oil prices tend to interfere with economic growth of oil importing nations".

So that last line would seem to suggest that if we were importing less, that would help a great deal. Would it not?



10/17/2012 9:32 AM
Obama might be better served not trying to make predictions on the outcomes of Romney's proposed policies seeing how far off he was in predicting the outcomes of his own policies over the past four years.
10/17/2012 9:34 AM
You'd think, as the major oil producing countries have ridiculously cheap gas.    However, I don't think our economy works quite like that.   As evidenced in the debate last night, the government leases/sells land for oil drilling.   The company doing the drilling will set the price not our government.   If they can export it and profit $5 per barrel or keep it in country and profit $1 per barrel, I think we know what they'd do.   If the government forces them to keep it in the US(and make less profit), fewer companies will be involved.   Less drilling won't help.
of 12
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Obama loses again.

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.